Meeting Report
Venue: Leipziger KUBUS, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ
Permoserstrasse 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
PESC-3 was organised by the Network-Forum for Biodiversity Research Germany (NeFo), in
cooperation with the Belgian Biodiversity Platform, the French Foundation for Research on
Biodiversity (FRB) and the Swiss Biodiversity Forum
3rd Pan-European IPBES Stakeholder Consultation (PESC-3)
14-16 June 2016, Leipzig (Germany)
A bottom-up contribution of European and Central Asian experts to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Photo
s:
S.
Tilch,
NeFo /
UFZ &
A.
Hallosseri
e, FRB
Content
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Background ............................................................................................................. 1
The PESC-3 conference ............................................................................................. 2
Newcomer session .................................................................................................... 2
Main programme, day 1 ............................................................................................ 3
Main programme, day 2, session on regional and disciplinary imbalances ........................ 4
Main programme, day 2, session on initiatives for networking and capacity building ......... 5
Main programme, day 3 ............................................................................................ 5
Reviewing the IPBES Regional Assessment of Europe and Central Asia ............................ 6
Geographic coverage by the ECA assessment / by PESC-3 ............................................. 6
Chances and challenges arising from reviewing draft documents as a group .................... 9
Stakeholder Engagement / Participation .................................................................... 11
Appendix 1: PESC-3 programme .............................................................................. 13
Appendix 2: List of participants ................................................................................ 15
References ............................................................................................................ 17
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. 17
1
Introduction
In June 2016, around 70 experts on biodiversity and ecosystem services gathered on the
occasion of the 3rd Pan-European IPBES Stakeholder Consultation (PESC-3) in Leipzig,
Germany, to discuss IPBES related issues, in particular the first order draft of the IPBES
Regional Assessment of Europe and Central Asia (ECA assessment) and options for
improving the involvement of experts and other stakeholders in IPBES processes. Given the
under-representation of Central and Eastern Europe as well as Central Asia in many of the
IPBES bodies or processes, the PESC conference series puts a special emphasis on the
involvement of and capacity building for experts from these regions.
Background
The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has been
established in 2012 to strengthen "the effective use of science in decision-making at all
levels" (www.ipbes.net). It has the tasks to "synthesize, review, assess and critically
evaluate relevant information and knowledge generated worldwide by governments,
academia, scientific organizations, non-governmental organizations and indigenous
communities" (ibd.). Currently, 125 countries are members of IPBES
(http://www.ipbes.net/about/members).
To implement the IPBES work programme and to make it relevant also for the regional,
national and/or local level, on which many biodiversity-related problems need to be
tackled, the global IPBES mechanism needs national and regional structures to build upon.
Such structures can spread information about IPBES, enrich IPBES negotiations by feeding
in diverse opinions, support the identification of experts relevant to the IPBES
assessments, disseminate IPBES products, and help to meet urgent capacity-building and
data needs (Marquard et al. 2016).
In Europe, one example of a regional bottom-up initiative is the Pan-European IPBES
Stakeholder Consultation (PESC) series. PESC meetings bring together individuals (and
organisations) that may contribute to the IPBES process (e.g. through their expertise,
knowledge, data) or may use its outputs (= "IPBES stakeholders" in the IPBES
terminology). In particular, these events seek to mobilize a diverse and active IBPES
stakeholder community across Europe and Central Asia. Following-up PESC-1 in Leipzig,
Germany (2013) and PESC-2 in Basel, Switzerland (2014), PESC-3 (Leipzig, 2016)
provided a Pan-European forum for discussing current developments in and around IPBES
and for reviewing the first order draft of the Regional Assessment of Europe and Central
Asia (ECA assessment).
2
The PESC-3 conference
The PESC-3 conference had the following main objectives:
1. Informing about current developments in and around IPBES, in particular on:
The Regional Assessment of Europe and Central Asia (ECA assessment)
Stakeholder engagement in IPBES & capacity building
2. Delivering contributions to the IPBES process, in particular:
Comments on the first order draft of the ECA assessment
Identification of relevant capacity-building needs in the region, and possible means
and resources to address them
Strengthening of existing and initiation of new networks, platforms and other
structures fostering the engagement in IPBES across the ECA region.
The addressed audience comprised experts on biodiversity and ecosystem services from
Western and Eastern Europe as well as Central Asia, possibly affiliated to scientific
institutions, governmental or administrative bodies, non-governmental organisations, or
the business-sector.
On Day 1 of the PESC-3 conference, the participants were given the opportunity to get
acquainted with IPBES, the ECA assessment, and with each other. The Newcomer session
was dedicated in particular to the introduction of IPBES to experts that were not yet
familiar with this intergovernmental platform. During the break-out group session,
participants started to discuss the individual chapters of the ECA assessment. On Day 2,
some issues related to the engagement of stakeholders were deepened, such as regional
and disciplinary imbalances within IPBES processes or IPBES bodies, opportunities for
networking and initiatives for capacity building. Furthermore, the work on the individual
chapters of the ECA assessment continued and was supplemented by a break-out group on
improving the options for stakeholder engagement. On day 3, participants heard a talk on
the completed IPBES assessment on pollinators and pollination. The results of the break-
out groups were finalized and the follow-up process was announced in plenary (for more
details, see the conference programme in Appendix 1).
In the following, the presentations held at PESC-3 are briefly described. Most of the slides
that were shown during these presentations are available at:
http://biodiversity.de/de/pesc-3-documentation.
Newcomer session
Axel Paulsch (ibn, Regensburg) gave an introductory talk in which he described the
history of IPBES, the expectations that the platform has raised and is confronted with, its
structures, working modalities and work programme.
3
Agnes Hallosserie (FRB, Paris) reported briefly that IPBES agreed on a conceptual
framework that is guiding its work. She further explained that such guiding framework is of
utmost importance for multidisciplinary undertakings such as the IPBES assessments, e.g.
for fostering a common understanding about the general approach and the questions to be
addressed. In an interactive exercise, the participants were asked to build a conceptual
framework themselves. For this purpose, they were provided with sheets of paper on which
the building blocks of the IPBES conceptual framework were printed. In a first step, the
participants were asked to assemble the different terms that represent the same building
block in different terminologies / world views (such as nature’s benefits to people +
ecosystem services). In a second step, they were asked to give an order to the building
blocks and to connect them with arrows with each other. Finally, the framework that has
been adopted by IPBES was presented to the participants so that they could compare to
what extend the result of their group equalled to or differed from the conceptual framework
of IPBES.
Lisa Marquard (NeFo/UFZ, Leipzig) provided some information on the possibilities for
experts to engage in IPBES. She detailed some of the prerequisites, incentives and
disincentives that could be connected to a particular role in an IPBES process. She pointed
out that the capacities for an effective engagement are distributed unevenly among
different stakeholder groups and emphasized that the implementation of the operating
principles of IPBES calls for inclusive approaches. This, in turn, requires the encouragement
and promotion of the engagement of stakeholder groups that are so far under-represented.
Carsten Neßhöver (NeFo/UFZ, Leipzig) shed more light on the activity that is most
prominent within the IPBES work programme: the undertaking of assessments. He outlined
the specificities of an assessment and why it is different from a scientific literature review.
Furthermore, he introduced the terms credibility, relevance and legitimacy as criteria
constituent to the effectiveness – and thus the ‘success’ – of a science-policy interaction in
general and an assessment process in particular. He gave some examples of how IPBES is
trying to meet these criteria as best as it can and pinpointed some of the challenges that
this creates.
Main programme, day 1
After the welcoming of the participants that had not attended the Newcomer session but
arrived only for the general opening, the main programme started with a general
introduction to the current status of and achievements by IPBES:
Felice van der Plaat (IPBES Secretariat, Bonn) gave an overview about the main features
and functions of IPBES, and pictured how the implementation of the first IPBES work
programme is progressing. This included a description of the different processes that are
currently running simultaneously and of the different structures that are supporting them
(e.g. the different TSUs, task forces, etc.). Felice focused on the Assessment function but
also highlighted some other activities on which progress has been made (such as the
fellowship programme and the roster of ILK experts).
4
Marine Elbakidze (SLU, Uppsala) gave an introductory talk on the ECA assessment. She
is one of the CLAs of its forth chapter and could therefore share insights on the content of
the assessment as well as on the process of conducting it. Marine first demonstrated
illustratively the vast diversity of the ECA region, being it with respect to ecosystems,
economic conditions, historical developments or culture. She then explained the approach
taken by the ECA expert group of dividing the geographic area addressed by the ECA
assessment into four sub-regions (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, she outlined the main
questions that are tackled and depicted some of the challenges the author teams are
struggling with. She also pointed out some of the gaps that still need to be filled during the
further synthesis of knowledge and the writing of the second order draft of the ECA
assessment.
Laurence Perianin (IUCN, Gland) delivered the final talk of day 1 on stakeholder
engagement in IPBES. She gave an overview of IUCN’s engagement in IPBES as both
institutions signed a memorandum of understanding recently. Then she presented which
steps have already been taken by stakeholders towards the self-organisation of the open-
ended, inclusive stakeholder network, mentioned in the IPBES Stakeholder Engagement
Strategy (SES), and aimed to collaborate with IPBES to support its work programme. She
further described the road ahead, e.g. the intention of stakeholders to organize an online-
voting among the registered IPBES stakeholders to identify representatives that would
compose the stakeholder committee.
Main programme, day 2, session on regional and disciplinary imbalances
Eszter Krasznai Kovács (University of Cambridge) presented her study on the reasons of
the under-representation of countries belonging to the UN region “Eastern European
Group” within IPBES (Kovács & Pataki 2016). She had gained her insights mostly from
interviews that she conducted with people that where involved in various bodies of IPBES
(the secretariat, the bureau, the MEP, other expert groups).
Axel Paulsch (ibn, Regensburg) reported on the results of a survey and a workshop that
he had conducted together with colleagues in 2015. Both, the survey and the workshop,
aimed at identifying and prioritizing capacity building needs for Eastern Europe and Central
Asia. Among the identified needs, the access to more information in Russian or other
languages of the respective regions as well as the access to financial support for traveling
was ranking high (Paulsch et al. 2015).
Julia Kloos (German IPBES coordination office, Bonn) reported on a different workshop
that broached the issue of disciplinary imbalances among the expert teams of IPBES, in
particular the under-representation of experts from the social sciences and humanities. She
presented the recommendations and associated policy options that the participants of the
workshop had summarized in a policy brief, see http://www.de-
ipbes.de/media/content/IPBES%202016%20Biodiversity%20Policy_final.pdf).
Anna Varga (Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót), the last speaker of the session on
regional and disciplinary imbalances, presented her work with traditional herders in
5
Hungary that hold indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) on how to manage their meadows
with sheep or cattle. She illustrated the added value of including such knowledge in nature
conservation efforts as well as ways of how this could be done. A film sequence
impressively visualized the herders’ life, attitudes and knowledge (the full movie may be
accessed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj5iLAuWoJg).
Main programme, day 2, session on initiatives for networking and capacity building
Carsten Neßhöver (NeFo/UFZ, Leipzig) briefly introduced the EKLIPSE project. EKLIPSE is
a “IPBES-like mechanism” for the European Union. It aims at improving the science-policy
dialogue on issues related to nature conservation within the EU. Currently, EKLIPSE has
launched its first two calls for experts (see http://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/).
Katja Heubach (NeFo/UFZ, Leipzig) reported on BSPIN, an international and
interdisciplinary network of early career scientists interested and engaging in science-policy
interfaces related to biodiversity (such as CBD / SBSTTA, IPBES, IPCC). It aims at building
capacities and at communicating the potential of early career scientists for contributing to
(global) science-policy interfaces. BSPIN has currently 92 members from 24 different
countries (see https://www.facebook.com/biodivspis).
Cosmas Kombat Lambini (University Bayreuth) gave details about the IPBES fellowship
programme. He presented information on how the young fellows are involved in IPBES
assessments and on the fellows themselves (e.g. their countries of origin, their disciplinary
background).
Hilde Eggermont (Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Brussels) introduced the “Pan-European
Network of National Platforms engaging in IPBES” by illustrating the benefits that national
platforms as well as their cooperation may have. She also presented the Website of the
Network (www.eca-ipbesnetwork.com) and invited all participants to consider whether their
countries could join this virtual information hub by providing some information on how the
engagement of stakeholders in IPBES is organized within their countries.
Shafqat Saeed (Agricultural University, Multan) spotlighted the situation in Pakistan. First,
he gave some impressive facts about his country that illustrated its immense diversity and
ecological significance. Then, he explained that information about IBPES is not easily
accessed in Pakistan, partly because there is no person or panel dedicated to its
dissemination.
Main programme, day 3
Joseph Settele (UFZ), who has been a CLA of the IPBES assessment on pollinators and
pollination, shared some of his experience that he gained during the preparation and
finalization of the assessment report as well as during the negotiation of the respective
Summary for policy makers (SPM). The latter is available at:
http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/Pollination_Summary%20for%20policy
makers_EN_.pdf.
6
Reviewing the IPBES Regional Assessment of Europe and Central Asia
The undertaking and scope of the ECA assessment (deliverable 2b) had been approved by
the third congregation of the representatives of IPBES member states in January 2015
(i.e., by the third IPBES plenary, IPBES-3). According to the respective decision
(IPBES/3/18, Decision IPBES-3/1), it focuses in particular on the following three questions:
How can ecosystems that provide ecosystem services, […] be protected through
investments, regulations and management regimes for terrestrial, freshwater,
coastal and marine systems?
What are the effects of production, consumption and economic development on
biodiversity and ecosystem services and their contribution to human wellbeing?
How can sectoral policies and new policy instruments make use of opportunities
arising from the contribution of biodiversity and ecosystem services to human well-
being?
By June 2016, more than 100 selected authors had delivered the first order draft (FOD) of
the ECA assessment, composed of six chapters. For seven weeks (30 May – 18 July 2016),
experts on biodiversity and ecosystem services from all over the world were invited to take
part in a review process. Everybody interested in the IPBES regional assessments could
register as a reviewer. The IPBES Secretariat checked all registrations and granted access
to the FOD to those persons for which they could validate that they had a relevant
expertise.
PESC-3 aimed at providing a forum for experts from the entire region addressed by the
ECA assessment to discuss the FOD and to propose, discuss and collate comments on or
additional knowledge sources for its individual chapters. Five break-out groups worked in
parallel on the individual chapters (chapters 2-6) of the ECA assessment (chapter 1 could
have been discussed in the group that also dealt with chapter 2 but the participants
decided to concentrate on the latter). The compiled list of PESC-3 comments (containing
nearly 200 individual comments) was sent to the Technical Support Unit (TSU) for the ECA
assessment on 15 July 2016 and is available upon request (please email to
Geographic coverage by the ECA assessment / by PESC-3
The geographic area addressed by the ECA assessment has been divided by the IPBES
expert group that scoped this assessment into three subregions: Central and Western
Europe (further divided into the Group of Central European countries and the Group of
Western European countries), Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Together, these subregions
cover the following 54 countries and territories, including marine and coastal areas (Tab. 1
and Fig. 1).
7
Tab. 1: Division of the geographic area addressed by the ECA assessment into the subregions Central and
Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia (IPBES/3/18, Decision IPBES-3/1, Annex VII, section B).
Subregions Countries and territories within the Europe and Central Asia region
Central and Western
Europe
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey (Group of Central European
countries)
Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Group of Western European countries)
Eastern Europe Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation and
Ukraine
Central Asia Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan
Many of the countries that are within the geographic scope of the ECA assessment were
represented by at least one expert at PESC-3. Some areas, however, were poorly
represented, in particular south- and south-east Europe, the eastern part of Russia as well
as Scandinavia and the Baltic countries (Fig. 2). In total, 73 people attended PESC-3
(Appendix 2).
The PESC-3 participants came from 23 different countries (see Fig. 2), representing the UN
regions “WEOG” (Western Europe and Others Group), “EEG” (Eastern Europe Group) and
“Asia Pacific” or, respectively, all the sub-regions that are recognized by IPBES for the ECA-
Assessment (Western Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Central Asia). Approx. 54 %
of the non-German PEC-3 participants came from countries in Europe or Asia that do not
belong to the WEOG (26 persons). They represented a variety of academic disciplines,
backgrounds and professions (mostly research related but some representatives of
ministries and NGOs were also present).
PESC-3 participants discussing one chapter of the first order draft of the ECA assessment (S. Tilch, NeFo / UFZ)
Given the constraints that limit the participation of experts in IPBES-related events
specifically from many non-WEOG countries, the recruitment of 26 experts from these
countries satisfied the PESC-3 ambition reasonably well. However, during the preparation
of the conference and the invitation of the participants, some of the obstacles for
8
participation became very obvious, mainly the limited access to relevant information and
financial restrictions. The existing barriers for an active participation in IPBES and the
resulting regional but also disciplinary imbalances were dealt with in a dedicated session at
PESC-3 (see above and the description of the work in the break-out group on stakeholder
engagement below).
Fig. 1: The geographic area addressed by the ECA assessment, divided into the sub-regions Central and Western
Europe (dark and light blue, respectively), Eastern Europe (magenta) and Central Asia (red).
Fig. 2: Representation of the countries belonging to the ECA assessment region by PESC-3 participants
(countries coloured in this graph were represented by at least one expert at PESC-3, the different colours specify
the different subregions as in Fig. 1). Two countries outside the ECA assessment region were represented, each
by one expert: Pakistan and Japan (in purple).
9
Chances and challenges arising from reviewing draft documents as a group
From several other events, NeFo and the cooperating biodiversity platforms that were
together hosting PESC-3 had gained experience with discussing IPBES draft documents
with a group of experts and with compiling lists of comments on these documents. The
chances that arise from such an exercise relate particularly to the involvement of experts
who would otherwise not notice that a review process was going on or would not
participate in it for various reasons. Furthermore, such events are very suitable for
delivering information on IPBES in general, for catalyzing discussions and for building
capacities for future involvements.
The Coordinating Lead Authors (CLA’s) and Lead Authors (LA’s) of the FOD of the ECA
assessment who participated in PESC-3 and attended the break-out groups related to their
chapter reported that they found the process very useful. The authors in the break-out
groups did not interfere during the substantive discussions but justified some choices made
in the FOD and emphasized the limits of the framework they were working with (e.g.
constrains set by the scoping document adopted by the IPBES plenary or the maximum
length that the text should finally have). This helped external experts to understand the
specificities of an IPBES assessment, and enabled them to make more constructive
comments. The conference organizers therefore strongly believe that events like the PESC
are valuable contributions to the overall process of getting experts interested and engaged
in IPBES (assessments).
However, before, during and after PESC-3, some challenges arose with regard to
“reviewing draft documents with a group”. Here, we would like to point out the ones that
are the most relevant in our eyes and from which some lessons might be drawn:
Getting access to the FOD: The procedure by which experts could ask for accessing the
FOD of the ECA assessment was rather complicated, requiring two registrations (as a user
of the IPBES webpage and as an expert reviewer). Several participants reported difficulties
with this procedure. Furthermore, access was sometimes not granted within the 48 hours
after registration as it had been announced by the IPBES Secretariat. The restricted access
to or delayed availability of the documents hindered participants in preparing for the
conference and complicated the work in the break-out groups.
Reviewing the FOD: A serious challenge for reviewing the FOD arose from the length of
its individual chapters. The organizers did not consider sufficiently in advance how such
long texts could be handled in a feasible way. For future events with a similar reviewing
exercise, the organizers propose to identify key sections beforehand and to consider asking
selected participants (or authors) to present the content of these sections to the
participants of the respective break-out group.
Submitting the compiled list of review comments: Dealing with review comments that
have been collected by a group (instead of having been submitted by an individual expert)
and that are not traceable to an individual person is an unconventional process within
IPBES so far and therefore challenges the established procedures that the TSU and the
10
IPBES Secretariat need to comply to. These procedures need to be justifiable, traceable
and applicable to all assessments that are running in parallel. Moreover, the assessment
will finally have to pass the plenary and get approval from all member countries. Therefore,
minor divergences from established rules or minor inconsistencies could create serious
difficulties for the entire process.
The main issues that have been discussed among the TSU, the Secretariat and the
organizers of PESC-3 in this respect are the following:
Duplication of comments: Comments that have been included in the "PESC-3 review sheet"
and that in addition have been handed in by individual experts that were attending the
conference may appear twice in the final compilation of comments. Such duplicated
comments might be given more weight by the review editors and authors than if they had
been handed in once.
This argument may be weakened by the assumption that authors and review editors will
judge the validity and usefulness of a comment on grounds of its quality, not of its
quantity. Furthermore, the “PESC-3 review sheet” may in fact have reduced the total
number of comments that were submitted because many PESC-3 participants probably
regarded it as sufficient when their views were incorporated in the common review sheet.
Generally, equaling one review comment with the opinion of one person may not always be
adequate. There may be many groups of experts who discuss certain issues and consider it
sufficient to submit one review sheet. On the other hand, there may be groups of experts
who follow the logic of giving weight to comments by increasing their number and if they
have a particular interest, they may co-ordinate themselves in order to submit as many
review sheets as possible with similar comments (conceivable for some action group, for
example). So in the eyes of the conference organizers, the logic "one comment = one
person's opinion" is a rather technocratic view that may deserve a general reconsideration
(possibly leading to a respective instruction of the review editors).
Getting in contact in case further elaboration or additional material is needed: Getting in
contact with a reviewer would indeed be most straightforward if the name of one individual
person was always submitted along with a particular comment. Unfortunately, the names
of the people that proposed a comment were not consistently collected during the PESC-3
break-out groups. For future events, this could be an option and should definitely be
considered. However, it may not always be possible to attribute just one name to one
comment, in particular if a consensus on this comment was reached within (part of) the
group.
Transparency: Usually, the names of all reviewers of an IPBES assessment who provided
comments are on the IPBES website and acknowledged in the annex of the respective final
assessment report. This increases the transparency of the process. When commenting as a
group, taking note of the names of the individual persons who propose a comment should
therefore be considered (see above). Another possibility could be to consider publishing the
names of all the people that have attended a reviewing group on the IPBES website.
11
IPBES is currently considering these issues and has not yet taken a definite decision on the
question of how to handle “group comments”. This question will be discussed at the
upcoming ECA management committee will be more generally considered by the IPBES
bureau in October 2016.
Generally, the organizers of PESC-3 believe that more feasibility with regard to accessing
the documents and some more flexibility with regard to the review procedure in general
would favor an open and inclusive process. However, the organizers are also very aware of
the fact that IPBES is an UN administered body that needs to operate strictly according to
established and recognized rules and in a transparent and accountable way.
Stakeholder Engagement / Participation
On day 2 of the PESC-3 conference, an additional break-out group formed that delved into
the question of how the engagement of stakeholders in IPBES could be improved, in
particular within countries where participation is low so far.
Participants identified possible incentives for an engagement in IPBES, such as
• Networking
• Recognition
• Involvement in trans-disciplinary work
• Learning about others how they handle the same problem
• Participation in a policy relevant process
• Possibility to “giving something back” to society / to contributing to something
bigger than usual work
• Beneficiating from information flow & work flow
• Contributing to the identification of knowledge gaps
• Influencing the policy making process at global level/EU
They discussed that these incentives could differ among different countries, between the
national and local level, and among different stakeholder groups. Participants further
exchanged views on possible challenges that stakeholders face, such as:
• IPBES processes don’t necessarily complement the current career
• Possibly low visibility of IPBES related activities
• Financial aspects (economic crisis in many countries, different priorities)
• Limited time
• Political context
• Low capacity of same states to support expert engagement
• National Focal Points partly overworked (if responsible for numerous conventions)
• Heterogeneous academic/scientific development
• Low Data availability
The participants agreed that awareness rising is crucial and that existing platforms could
help in this regard. Neutral facilitators may be needed for bringing different actors (such as
12
institutional / governmental / non-governmental) around the same table. Participants also
stressed the importance of getting engaged other sectors than the one responsible for the
environment / nature conservation (agriculture, etc.). Tailored basic information material
for different stakeholder groups and its delivery via specific and diverse dissemination
channels were regarded necessary. Language was discussed as one issue that could hinder
the participation of stakeholders in many regions. Participants suggested that basic
information on IPBES should also be available in local languages but that an emphasis
should always be placed on the fact that the working language of IPBES is English (and
that sufficient knowledge of the English language is a prerequisite for actually getting
involved in its work). Moreover, participants suggested that requests for financial support
that stakeholders may address to their governments for taking part in projects fulfilling
identified IPBES needs may be more successful if they are backed by IPBES itself.
Last but not least, the BES-Net matchmaking facility was seen as a potentially very useful
tool for stakeholders to build their capacities.
The main output of the break-out group on stakeholder engagement has been a list of
names / contact details and events, compiled by the participants. It contains names and
contact details of people that are suggested as possible additional sources for data or other
forms of knowledge for filling identified gaps in the draft of the ECA assessment. The
events are suggested as possible occasions for holding future IPBES stakeholder workshops
or other meetings in the context of IPBES (possibly as sessions within the listed events or
back-to back to them). The list was submitted to the TSU on 13 July 2016 who circulated it
to the CLAs of the ECA assessment and is available upon request (please email to
[email protected]). An issue that was raised several times, not only in the break-out
group on stakeholder engagement but also during the plenary discussions, was that PESC-
like meetings should be held in the future in countries further east (i.e. in Eastern Europe
or Central Asia).
PESC-3 participants at the terrace of the KUBUS conference centre at UFZ Leipzig (S. Tilch, NeFo / UFZ)
13
Appendix 1: PESC-3 programme
Day 1 (Tuesday, 14 June)
Day 1 Content Presenter
08:00 Registration (newcomer session)
New
com
er
sessio
n 1
09:00 Welcome ‘Newcomer’ NeFo and co-operating National Biodiversity Platforms
09:10 Introduction to IPBES Axel Paulsch, Institute for Biodiversity – ibn, Regensburg
10:00 IPBES Conceptual Framework Agnès Hallosserie, Foundation
for Research on Biodiversity (FRB)
10:30 Coffee
New
com
er
sessio
n 2
11:00 IPBES Assessments Carsten Neßhöver, UFZ / NeFo
11:30 Participation in IPBES Lisa Marquard, UFZ / NeFo
12:00 Discussion / Closing session
13:00 Lunch, General registration
Welc
om
e &
Intr
o
14:00 Welcomes by the organisers, by the UFZ, & introduction to PESC-3: history and objectives
Lisa Marquard on behalf of NeFo, Carsten Neßhöver on behalf of UFZ, Agnès Hallosserie on behalf of FRB
14:20 Introductory talk on IPBES: current status + achievements Felice van der Plaat, IPBES Secretariat
14:50 Introductory talk on the ECA Regional Assessment:
The First Order Draft, overview of individual chapters, procedure of open review
Marine Elbakidze, LA of ECA-Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sc., Uppsala
15:20 Introduction to break-out groups Carsten Neßhöver, UFZ / NeFo
15:30 Coffee
Bre
ak-o
ut
gro
ups (
BG
) 16:00 Break out groups on ECA Assessment individual chapters:
Ch 1 + 2: Introduction + Nature’s benefits to people Ch 3: Status, trends and future dynamics of BES Ch 4: Direct and indirect drivers of change Ch 5: Interactions of nature & human society Ch 6: Governance & decision making
Ple
nary
17:30 Stakeholder Engagement
Laurence Perianin, IPBES Programme Officer, IUCN
18:00 Wrap-up of day 1 NeFo / PESC-3 organising team
18:30 Close
14
Day 2 (Wednesday, 15 June)
Day 2 Content Presenter
09:00 Welcome Back & Recap of Day 1
Part
icip
ation b
arr
iers
& w
ays
to o
verc
om
e t
hese
09:10 Regional imbalance 1: Participation of experts from the Eastern European region in the IPBES
Eszter Krasznai Kovács, University of Cambridge
09:40 Regional imbalance 2: Shaping capacity-building for stakeholder
engagement with IPBES, report from an workshop with Eastern European and Central Asian experts
Axel Paulsch, Institute for
Biodiversity – ibn, Regensburg
10:00 Disciplinary imbalance: Embedding the social sciences and
humanities in IPBES – An approach from the German IPBES Coordination Office
Julia Kloos, German IPBES
coordination office
10:30 Inclusion of indigenous & local knowledge (ILK): How to motivate nature conservationist to cooperate with local people? A case of high nature and cultural value wood pasture management in Hungary
Anna Varga, Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót
11:00 Coffee
BG
11:30 Break out groups, continuation + Stakeholder Engagement / Participation
13:00 Lunch
Netw
ork
s &
Capacity
buildin
g
14:00 Network of National Biodiversity Platforms in Europe supporting IPBES
Hilde Eggermont, Royal Belgian Inst. for Natural Sciences, IPBES National Focal Point for Belgium
14:10 EKLIPSE – Developing a mechanism for supporting better
decisions on our environment - A Horizon2020 project.
Carsten Neßhöver, UFZ / NeFo
14:20 BSPIN Biodiversity Science-Policy-Interfaces Network for Early Career Scientists
Katja Heubach, NeFo / UFZ Leipzig
14:30 IPBES Young Fellowship Programme Cosmas Kombat, IPBES Young Fellow, University of Bayreuth
14:45 Spotlight: Engaging experts in IPBES – how does this work in
Pakistan?
Shafqat Saeed, Muhammad
Nawaz Shareef University, Multan
15:00 Coffee
BG
15:30 Break out groups, continuation
Ple
nary
17:00 Reporting Back by break-out groups on current discussions and
possible output, wrap-up of Day 2
Rapporteurs
17:30 Wrap-up of Day 2 NeFo / PESC-3 organising team
18:00 Close (19:30 Conference Dinner at “Alte Schlosserei”)
Day 3 (Thursday, 16 June)
Day 3 Content Presenter
Ple
nary
09:00 Recap of Day 2 & preliminary results of break-out groups
09:15 The IPBES Pollination Assessment Joseph Settele, CLA Pollination Assessment, UFZ Halle
09:45 Plenary discussion
10.30 Coffee
BG
11:00 Break out groups, finalization of outputs
12:30 Wrap-up & Follow-up activities NeFo / PESC-3 organising team
13:00 Fare-well Lunch (14:00 Close)
15
Appendix 2: List of participants
Name First name Institution / Organisation City Country
1 Aghasyan Levon Scientific Center of Zoology and Hydroecology, National Academy of Sciences Yereva Armenia
2 Aicher Christoph UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig Germany
3 Akhobadze Sophiko Regional Environmental Center for the South Caucasus Tbilisi Georgia
4 Balian Estelle Belgian Biodiversity Platform Brussels Belgium
5 Balkız Özge Doğa Koruma Merkezi (Nature Conservation Centre) Ankara Turkey
6 Bashta Andriy-Taras Association "Fauna" Lviv Ukraine
7 Böhnke-Henrichs Anne
Foundation for Sustainable Development / Wageningen University Wageningen Netherlands
8 Brosens Dimitri Belgian Biodiversity Platform Brussels Belgium
9 Bukvareva Elena Biodiversity Conservation Center Moscow Russia
10 Collaro Carolina University of Bayreuth Bayreuth Germany
11 Condé Sophie European Topic Centre/Biodiversity (ETC/BD) Paris France
12 Droste Nils UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig Germany
13 Eggermont Hilde Belgian Biodiversity Platform Brussels Belgium
14 Elbakidze Marine Swedish University of Agricultural Sceinces Ramsberg Sweden
15 Feest Alan University of Bristol Bristol UK
16 Grant Hilary Joint Nature Conservation Committee Peterborough UK
17 Güvendiren Aysun Demet Republic of Turkey The Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs Ankara Turkey
18 Hakobyan Susanna Scientific Center for Zoology and Hydrobiology, National Academy of Sciences Yerevan Armenia
19 Hallosserie Agnes Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité Paris France
20 Hauck Jennifer UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig Germany
21 Henle Klaus UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig Germany
22 Heubach Katja UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research / NeFo Leipzig Germany
23 Hilgers Astrid Ministry of economic affairs Den Haag Netherlands
24 Horgan Katie University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland
25 Karimov Bakhtiyor NGO "Scientific-consulting center ECOSERVICE" Tashkent Uzbekistan
26 Keller Roger University of Zurich, Department of Geography Zürich Switzerland
27 Kenjabaev Shavkat SIC ICWC - Interstate Commission for Water Coordination of Central Asia Tashkent Uzbekistan
28 Kloos Julia German Aerospace Center - Project Management Agency Bonn Germany
29 Krasznai Kovács Eszter University of Cambridge Cambridge UK
30 Lambini Cosmas Kombat BayCEE-Bayreuth University Bayreuth Germany
31 Lamm Sabine Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Leipzig Germany
32 Lemaitre Frederic BiodivERsA, Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité Paris France
33 Lindblad Cecilia Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Stockholm Sweden
34 Maltseva Elina Kazakhstan's Man and the Biosphere Committee Almaty Kazakhstan
35 Marquard Elisabeth UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research / NeFo Leipzig Germany
36 Martirosyan Yeva Foundation for the Preservation of Wildlife and Cultural Assets Yerevan Armenia
37 Molnár Zsolt MTA Centre for Ecological Research Vácrátót Hungary
38 Nesshöver Carsten UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research / NeFo Leipzig Germany
39 Neuhaus Michael UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig Germany
40 Niamir Aidin Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Institute Frankfurt am Main Germany
41 Novikova Tatiana National Biodiversite and Biosafety Center Geneva Tajikistan
42 Novitsky Ruslan Centre for bioresources of NASB Minsk Belarus
43 Okayasu Sana Institute for Global Environmental Strategies Hayama, Kanagawa Japan
16
44 Osipova Elena IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Gland Switzerland
45 Paulsch Axel Institute for Biodiversity Network e.V. Regensburg Germany
46 Pe'er Guy UFZ / Society for Conservation Biology Leipzig Germany
47 Perelet Renat Institute for Systems Analysis Moscow Russia
48 Perianin Laurence IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Gland Switzerland
49 Priess Jörg UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig Germany
50 Reuter Katrin Museum für Naturkunde Berlin; NeFo Berlin Germany
51 Ring Irene UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig Germany
52 Saeed Shafqat Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture, Multan Multan Pakistan
53 Salimov Rashad Institute of Botany Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences Baku Azerbaijan
54 Schade Till-David NABU – Naturschutzbund Deutschland Berlin Germany
55 Schliep Rainer Museum für Naturkunde Berlin; NeFo Berlin Germany
56 Schmalzbauer Bettina German Committee Future Earth Stuttgart Germany
57 Sette Câmara Luísa London School of Economics London UK
58 Settele Josef UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Halle Germany
59 Sidorovich Anna Scientific and Practical Center for Bioresources Minsk Belarus
60 Skorin Teuta Society for Conservation Biology Zagreb Croatia
61 Spehn Eva Forum Biodiversität Schweiz Bern Switzerland
62 Stefan Andrea WWF Adria Zagreb Croatia
63 Sudar Srna REC Montenegro Podgorica Montenegro
64 Torre-Marin Rando Amor IPBES TSU Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia Bern Switzerland
65 van der Plaat Felicitas IPBES Bonn Germany
66 Vandewalle Marie UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig Germany
67 Varga Anna MTA Centre for Ecological Research Vácrátót Hungary
68 Winkler Klara Johanna University Oldenburg Oldenburg Germany
69 Wojcik Adrian Nicolaus Copernicus University Torun Poland
70 Zgurovskiy Konstantin WWF Russia Moscow Russia
71 Zikiryaev Furkat Centre "Zapovedniks" Moscow Russia
17
References
Kovács E. & Pataki G. (2016): The participation of experts and knowledges in the
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
Environmental Science & Policy 57: 131-139. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.007
Marquard E., Balian E., Eggermont H., Guillain, P. E., Hallosserie A., Heubach K.,
Huybrechts P., Hyvärinen E., Keune H., Mortimer D., Neßhöver C., Niemelä J., Sousa
Pinto I., Spehn E. & Timpte M. (2016): European National Biodiversity Platforms as
Partners for the Implementation of the IPBES Work Programme – Opportunities and
Challenges. Report edited by the German Network-Forum for Biodiversity Research
(NeFo). http://eca-ipbesnetwork.org/1806
Paulsch A., Heubach K. & Paulsch C. (2015): Shaping capacity-building for
stakeholder engagement with IPBES according to most urgent capacity-building
needs, identified with experts from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. A study
commissioned by the German IPBES coordination office.
http://www.biodiv.de/en/projekte/aktuell/ipbes-ost.html
Acknowledgements
The organizers thank all presenters for their contributions and all participants for involving
actively in the discussions during PESC-3. The organizers are further very grateful to the
IPBES Secretariat and the TSU of the ECA assessment for their very valuable support.
Further thanks of the local organizer team go to the colleagues from Berlin, Paris, Brussels
and Basel as well as to F&U confirm and Ines Höhne and Marie Vandewalle (UFZ).
The PESC-3 conference was sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF). Additional resources were provided by the Helmholtz Centre for
Environmental Research – UFZ and the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN).
The PESC-3 conference was organised by the Network-Forum of Biodiversity Research
Germany (NeFo) in co-operation with the Belgium Biodiversity Platform, the Foundation for
Research on Biodiversity in France (FRB) and the Swiss Forum for Biodiversity. Additional
in-kind support was provided by Laurence Perianin (IUCN) and Axel Paulsch (ibn).
NeFo is a project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
and is mainly carried out by the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ and
the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin. For more information about the NeFo project and its
team, please visit www.biodiversity.de.
Elisabeth Marquard, 22 July 2016